I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this, and that smart people are the underlying engines of the world. Consumers and voters are fuel, the rich and powerful are drivers, but the smart people are the engines.

I only wish we had more engines here in America. I can’t help but wonder as to the average American’s understandings of research methodology and how figures like the one above are absolutely worthless.

There seems to be a real problem with taking statistics at face value without a clue on how to work backwards through the manner in which the number was derived to see if any useful generalizations can be made.

“I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this”

No they don’t, but it doesn’t matter. The people who run the civilian disarmament complex are themselves quite smart. They often have Ivy League degrees and high IQ’s (Josh Sugarman is not dumb, just dishonest and misguided). Being smart is no defense against believing stupid ideas and it doesn’t mean you are immune to irrational thinking, especially if it is emotionally satisfying. Aside from that, their goal is to bamboozle the ignorant, low information voter into accepting the myths of gun control. They aren’t after the smart voter, it’s the stupid voter they need because there are lots of them.

I’ve finally had enough. When Demand Action rolls into Chicago approaches hard core gang members, unarmed, on the street and demands the end of violence every day for 6 months will I give any credibility to the organization.

But how many are stabbed/beaten to death? You know, because bullets make you so much more deader than a knife or baseball bat.

If there isn’t a similar infographic out TOMORROW by the NRA, SAF, or some other organization to point out that overall violence against women by their “intimate partner” is not affected by background checks, then we’re failing.

Why have we not opened the NICS yet? If I had the ability to verify whether someone buying a gun from me in a private sale was forbidden by law from owning a gun, I would absolutely do so — and I think most sellers would, even in the absence of an intrusive and unenforceable mandate.

If there are privacy issues, let’s get them on the table so we can fix them. But the NICS is a resource that could, and should, be used to help address the issues that the MDA crowd claim to be concerned with. If they won’t accept anything less than a de facto universal registration scheme, they at least ought to have to explain why they refuse to support a “sensible, life-saving compromise.”

NICS is a closed system because it’s not about the check, it’s about the 4473. The ATF can force FFLs to keep the 4473 under threat of loss of licence. But it can’t force private sellers to maintain the records, and that’s what the ATF really wants.

Understood — my question was more rhetorical than actual (hence the reference to de facto universal registration). What I’m getting at is, isn’t this something that we should be hammering MDA and their ilk on? Isn’t it something pro-gun politicians should be forcing anti-gunners to either vote for, or appear hypocritical for refusing to support a measure that could actually pass? It seems like a win-win for us; I’d actually be pleased if the NICS opened up, and if the Senate refuses to pass it or the President refuses to sign it, their supporters will be demoralized and their opposition will be energized.

Clever Ad, use a little fact and a lot of bias! It reminds me of Biden’s comment about “garden variety slap” in reference to domestic violence. They don’t care about domestic violence if a gun isn’t involved. They are in effect saying violence is ok if no guns are involved. “Fewer women shot to death by intimate partners” It implies they are fully aware of stabbings, beating, asphyxiations, poisonings, and burnings, but lack of interest about non gun related deaths. Internal to their ad is their concern with “gun deaths” but lack concern for the problem of domestic violence. It is so twisted.

Unfortunately, as we POTG ALL know, the relevancy and truth of statistics are important when emotion is involved. They could write that 150% of gun sales lead anything, the truth will not set them free.

Looks like a Glock 26 with a pinkie extension. Some people should ‘Man Up’ and practice shooting like you are going to carry. OHHHH! Ya’ll are talking about the text. I was too fixated on the firearm. sorry.

It is my firm belief, that crime stats comparisons are almost entirely worthless. There are many many factors that arguably affect crime. Crowded or sparse, rich or poor, families or deadbeats. One would like to clone a city and change nothing except make one pro-gun, one anti-gun and then compare. But even then, the effect of any particular gun law (or lack thereof) cannot be determined.

So let us assume, arguendo, that proportionately, fewer women are shot to death by “intimate partners” in say California. Is that because of virtually universal background checks? Or is it because fewer households have a gun? Or is it because partners are less likely to use a gun due to noise in a more crowded environment? Or ad nauseam.

So I propose this. Rather than looking at generic comparisons between places that differ wildly in other aspects, look at the general trends in each. E.g. Britain has always had a far lower murder rate than the US….but ours has been steadily dropping, theirs have hit higher than the average for the last century. The trend shows betterment here, things getting worse there. This while we have more carrying and owning guns than before, and they less. Even here we cannot attribute the trend to just gun laws. But it undermines a correspondence of more guns=more violence.

Anyhow, no way of easily checking the random assertion even on the face of it. And what exactly is UBC? In one sense, only California and RI have UBC, whereas other states have background checks for gunshows, say. But in any case, is the population of the 2-15 states, I don’t know, equal to the combined of the rest, less than it, more than it? If less, say 38% less, there would be, with an equal rate of incidences, 38% FEWER women shot…

Chicago had 27% fewer murders than the entire state of California. So Chicago is safer, right? But its murder rate is almost 4 times higher. They want to assert less of a chance of getting killed. But what they state is just a matter of fewer. Which means nothing. Most states do not have UBC. So, yes such stats will be FEWER as there are FEWER people for them to apply to.

I find it ironic how people here are outraged about “misleading statistics” and such, and happily repeat the oft-quoted “there’s lies and then there’s statistics” when it’s anti-gun, yet immediately bring up similarly poorly verified “more guns, less crime” stats when it’s time to defend 2A.

My guess is it’s something like a percentage of total firearm murders of women. In those states where there are more restrictive firearm laws and more murders, the rate of women shot by their partners will be lower.

The percentage of women assaulted by their partner is 99% less on the streets of Chicago than on Main Street in Disneyland.

I just realize I made a mistake. It should have been Chicago has 73% fewer murders than California, yet 4 times the murder rate (Chicago: 516 murders, California: 1884, or 19.1 per 100k versus 5.0 per 100k ) I can both say there were fewer murders in Chicago and Chicago has a much higher murder rate. Saying “fewer” means nothing without any sense of proportion